People v. Celeya CA2/5

Filed 10/2/20 P. v. Celeya CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B298988

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA268597) v.

JUAN CARLOS CELEYA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a post-judgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, George Lomeli, Judge. Affirmed. Charlotte E. Costan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Amanda V. Lopez and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Juan Carlos Celeya (defendant) of second degree murder and found true an allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing death or great bodily injury. After enactment of Senate Bill No. 1437 (Senate Bill 1437), defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95.1 The trial court denied his petition without appointing counsel. We consider whether the jury’s personal discharge of a firearm finding means defendant is ineligible for section 1170.95 relief as a matter of law.

I. BACKGROUND In July 2004, at a backyard party to celebrate a college graduation, a gang-related altercation broke out between two men. Defendant joined the fight in defense of one of the men, and one of the party-goers, Enrique Cruz (Cruz), sought to defuse the situation by pleading with the men to stop fighting. That didn’t work, and Cruz was drawn into the fight. As later found by a trial jury, defendant pulled a semi- automatic handgun and fatally shot Cruz. Described in legal terms, the jury convicted defendant and a co-defendant of the second degree murder of Cruz and the attempted willful, deliberate, and premediated murder of another guest at the party. The jury was instructed on the natural and probable consequences theory of murder, but the jury made a finding— alleged in connection with the count charging him with the murder of Cruz—that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury or death